Ranking Score Explained
Hi there, thanks for your interest in how we calculate an experience's ranking score. It's at the core of Rankers so I'm pleased you're curious.
The ranking score percentage is used to compare and sort experiences in ranking tables. It is not necessarily a direct measurement of the quality of a particular experience as rated by its customers. I've found it a useful tool to allow me to find the best experiences with confidence. But I've also found it important to read the customer reviews before making any final judgements!
We calculate an experience's ranking score using a multi-factor data model instead of a raw data average (mean). This model takes into account several important questions. For instance - is there a trusted body of reviews? What is the age of a review and is the review from a credible source?
Below you'll find details around some of the important factors that went into calculating the ranking score for Queenstown i-SITE Visitor Information Centre.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
Queenstown i-SITE Visitor Information Centre
Valid Reviews
69 Valid Reviews
The Queenstown i-SITE Visitor Information Centre experience has a total of 70 reviews. There are 69 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 1 invalid review that are excluded from the calculation. Reviews can be excluded only when a reviewer is not verified or after an investigation by our team determines the reviewer is not genuine.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 69 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 20 |
|
29% |
| 9/10 | 11 |
|
16% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
7% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
10% |
| 4/10 | 6 |
|
9% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
77.54% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Queenstown i-SITE Visitor Information Centre valid reviews is 77.54% and is based on 69 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
Face-to-Face Reviews
69 Face-to-Face Reviews
The Rankers team meets with travellers while they’re in New Zealand and conducts face-to-face surveys. These reviews, in our opinion, are the most trusted in the industry and represent a critical control sample. To our knowledge, we are the only travel review website in the world that has gone to this extent.
More about face-to-face reviews
Within the 69 valid reviews, the experience has 69 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 69 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 20 |
|
29% |
| 9/10 | 11 |
|
16% |
| 8/10 | 15 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 5 |
|
7% |
| 6/10 | 3 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
10% |
| 4/10 | 6 |
|
9% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
77.54% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Queenstown i-SITE Visitor Information Centre face-to-face reviews is 77.54% and is based on 69 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
79.94%
Rankers calculates a weighted mean as a base average on which we can improve. Individual review's ratings are given a weight based on several factors. The weight of a review determines the overall impact it'll have on the final weighted average.
Recent reviews have more weight as they are more relevant and reflect the experience as it currently operates. Over time reviews become less relevant and loose their impact on the ranking score.
Low rating reviews carry slightly less weight. This dampens the effect of very low ratings for every experience across the board. This is especially important when the experience has few reviews overall and a single negative rating can grossly mischaracterise an experience. Consistent poor reviews will still result in the experience receiving a comparitively low ranking score.
Credible sources provide reviews that can be trusted. If we have verified a reviewer is genuine via a face-to-face meeting then the review carries additional weight.
| Reviewer | Rating | Age | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jennifer Gilbert | 10/10 | 2145 days | 100% |
| Rebecca Wharton | 9/10 | 2168 days | 98% |
| Tom Grigg | 10/10 | 2193 days | 95% |
| Laura and Marie | 4/10 | 2204 days | 63% |
| Kilian Vos | 8/10 | 2228 days | 84% |
| Jam Boggomann | 10/10 | 2239 days | 90% |
| Patricia Revel | 5/10 | 2488 days | 42% |
| Claudia Hillebrand | 5/10 | 2491 days | 42% |
| Julian Kuemme | 7/10 | 2493 days | 53% |
| Andrea Sole | 8/10 | 2493 days | 58% |
| Helen Olsson | 4/10 | 2494 days | 39% |
| Mandy Reich | 8/10 | 2494 days | 58% |
| Patricia Erni | 10/10 | 2496 days | 64% |
| Robert Erni | 10/10 | 2496 days | 64% |
| Lilli Erni | 10/10 | 2496 days | 64% |
| Manuel Bleiker | 10/10 | 2496 days | 64% |
| Mark | 8/10 | 2500 days | 57% |
| Jana Rutkowski | 10/10 | 2504 days | 63% |
| Dennis Philippi | 10/10 | 2504 days | 63% |
| Helene Andersen | 6/10 | 2513 days | 42% |
| Oliver Blackmore | 10/10 | 2517 days | 62% |
| Siobhan Mee | 8/10 | 2517 days | 56% |
| Benoit Irissou | 4/10 | 2518 days | 37% |
| Andrea Morello | 8/10 | 2520 days | 55% |
| Mara | 8/10 | 2520 days | 55% |
| Sophie Wolters | 9/10 | 2526 days | 61% |
| Mike Gemmill | 10/10 | 2529 days | 60% |
| Francisco Pablo Miguel | 4/10 | 2543 days | 35% |
| Inga Memmen | 10/10 | 2544 days | 59% |
| Emma Wallace | 9/10 | 2552 days | 58% |
| Lena Jensen | 8/10 | 2553 days | 52% |
| Jesper Andersen | 8/10 | 2553 days | 52% |
| Bella Danaher | 9/10 | 2555 days | 58% |
| Daniel Danamer | 10/10 | 2555 days | 58% |
| Uta Dingebauer | 6/10 | 2562 days | 38% |
| Gal Bero | 5/10 | 2580 days | 34% |
| Daniel McAlpine | 5/10 | 2582 days | 34% |
| Yvonne Horpershoeh | 7/10 | 2585 days | 45% |
| Sven Woelk | 8/10 | 2847 days | 23% |
| Annika Schmidt | 8/10 | 2857 days | 22% |
| Patrick Stoeit | 7/10 | 2857 days | 19% |
| Marco Schmidt | 8/10 | 2862 days | 22% |
| Christian Schumacher | 8/10 | 2862 days | 22% |
| Lisa | 4/10 | 2867 days | 9% |
| Socea | 6/10 | 2867 days | 12% |
| Brandon Wells | 9/10 | 2870 days | 25% |
| Luise Fuchs | 9/10 | 2873 days | 25% |
| Postel Ge | 10/10 | 2875 days | 25% |
| Claire | 7/10 | 2883 days | 17% |
| Lydia Kleinkoenen | 5/10 | 2887 days | 9% |
| Hannah Lia-Isis Kubillus | 1/10 | 2887 days | 2% |
| Justin Leest | 10/10 | 2887 days | 23% |
| Francis Ruige | 10/10 | 2887 days | 23% |
| Rogier Ramaker | 7/10 | 2888 days | 16% |
| Andrea Lang | 10/10 | 2889 days | 23% |
| Petra Blumberg | 8/10 | 2889 days | 19% |
| Maja Bogdanowicz | 9/10 | 2890 days | 23% |
| Sara Omary | 3/10 | 2893 days | 5% |
| Alison Langley | 8/10 | 2955 days | 13% |
| Mike Edwards | 10/10 | 2958 days | 16% |
| Mark and Eefie | 5/10 | 2958 days | 3% |
| Michael Kretzschmar | 9/10 | 2959 days | 16% |
| Marieke | 5/10 | 2959 days | 2% |
| Sharon Yates | 10/10 | 2961 days | 16% |
| Franz Schueler | 10/10 | 2965 days | 15% |
| Andreas and Christine and Nora Busch | 4/10 | 2972 days | 0% |
| Camille | 9/10 | 2978 days | 14% |
| Auger | 9/10 | 2980 days | 14% |
| Auger | 9/10 | 2980 days | 14% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Queenstown i-SITE Visitor Information Centre does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Final Ranking Score
80%
The final ranking score once rounding has been applied. This value is cached and recalculated each day. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz.